Problems in Communism

Since most of ex-Communist countries are poor today and underdeveloped, i want to explain why is that and how Communism is guilty for that problem and how it is possible to solve it.

When Communism is established, it is followed by collectivisation of agriculture and nationalization of industry(factories and companies). Those means of production are taken from their private owners and state decide whom to employ, whom to sack, what to produce and quantity.

Peasants get their crop fields merged in one big field where it is easier to grow crop and harvest it later. Those fields were large as few thousand hectares sometimes, in theory they should be efficient. Same with factories, they were merged to create big corporations where state appoint managers and employ thousand of workers, they could build enormous numbers of tractors, tanks, ships and machinery.

Problem was that peasants in merged crop fields and workers in factories had same wage which didnt change at all(it was fixed salary to protect financials from ups and downs and crisis). While production and company profit grows(profit went straight to government budget along with taxes). Even managers and directors had non-changed wages (usually 3 to 5 times higher than workers, fixed though). That made workers and peasants less efficient as wage didnt encourage them to work harder, they worked less and less efficient over the years, creating less and less quality products.

Since production grew, it needed to be allocated along with profit made from it, that was (as everything else) job of a state committee for distribution and allocation of goods. After years of economic growth, economy became very large (USSR), it was giant, it was impossible to be controled by some small committee sitting in Moscow. And eventually collapsed.

Now, the problem is state-owned farms and factories. Heirs of that land(farms) and buildings(factories) are found (heirs of people from whom land is taken to be merged into state collective). Problem is there are more heirs claiming same land and buildings. Because their grandfather had 4 children, they had 2 each which make 8 heirs for one inheritance. It is impossible to decide whom to give inheritance, and heirs fight over it, every one of them want 100% and are unwilling to share (greed). State (current one, capitalist) cannot decide because it doesnt own lands/buildings anymore, they should be returned to original owners, but owners cant agree among themselves.

There are examples people agree and share land, they get what is theirs from their grandfather, but there is problem again... Their grandfather had big land of 4 hectares (4,000 square meters), but today there are 4 grandchildren, so they split that land on 4, and everyone take 1 hectare (1,000 square meters) which mean it is small land, not large enough to grow food and make profit from it. If grandfather didnt had his land collectivized during Communism, he would own 100% and he would decide what his son or daughter would get 100% of his land, he wouldnt share it, thus his son would pass it to his grandchildren 100% and he would sold it 100%, or work it on and that would be efficient because everything he earn from that land would be 100% profit just for him, which will encourage him to work harder. Same with factories, they get 25% of factory and sell it or leave it to become ruin as time pass by.

West Europe didnt had such problems, but it had WWI and WWII, where their land and factories was destroyed, but they rebuilt it and now they make profit. While East Europe had WWI, WWII, Revolution, Civil War which destroyed economy, and then Communism collectivized and nationalized land and factories from people. Today 80 years later, people are unable to work and be efficient/productive because inheritance is either too small(if they shared it with other heirs) or they still didnt get inheritance(because unable to agree with other heirs).

Its been 25 years since Fall of Communism in Europe, but economy still didnt recover, from the reasons i explained above, while West Europe and America didnt had that or nearly similar problems, while they even had colonies until recently to generate wealth from, which make them very rich today and will create enormous wealth more in the future, while East Europe will stay the same, with same unsolved problems.



---

I wrote this to show real problems in Communism, which are so serious and make us unable to solve them even decades after Communism. You wont hear it on the West, because it is too complicated to explain and repeat, thats why West use simple propaganda like 'Communism killed millions' and such. That is an insult to Russian or Chinese people, because Russians and Chinese are not weak people and proven to be brave warriors in times of troubles. If Communism was so oppressive Russian and Chinese people would just destroy the system and create new one. Though there was oppressive system, Communism in Cambodia, they were brutal, but dont forget that Communist Vietnam attacked them and destroyed that oppressive system. Communism had flaws but it also had good things, like Capitalism, it is not that different, just the other edge of the same sword.

Now, above all these problems, add anti-Russian economic sanctions. Sanctions always hit poor people first. Like its not enough they suffered before.

I had to add this, because im asking myself, wheres the humanity, compassion and sympathy gone.

#Tito4President

Kirjutas Skanderbeg, 31.08.2015 at 05:26

Since most of ex-Communist countries are poor today and underdeveloped,

wat?

Russia/Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania/Poland/Czech Republic/Slovakia are all phenomenally rich countries. Hungary, Belarus, and Croatia aren't rich, but they're still quite well off.

They may seem poor from a first world perspective, but I guarantee you, as a person who have lived in a middle-income country for years, that the average Pole or the average Czech has it so, so much better than the average South Asian (India, Pakistan, Thailand, etc...).

Kirjutas Skanderbeg, 31.08.2015 at 05:43

Now, above all these problems, add anti-Russian economic sanctions. Sanctions always hit poor people first. Like its not enough they suffered before.

I had to add this, because im asking myself, wheres the humanity, compassion and sympathy gone.

YES PUTIN GOOD,PUTIN GREAT,RUSKI ? NJET RUSKI.ODJEBI SUKAAAAA!!!
JEBI NAS PUTINE,NEK CURI NIZ BUTINE. TITO&VUČICA

Kirjutas Black Swans, 31.08.2015 at 08:02

JEBI NAS PUTINE,NEK CURI NIZ BUTINE.

hahahaahahahahahahahahahahaggagahh

Kirjutas Skanderbeg, 31.08.2015 at 05:26

-------------------

I'd rather live in a world where everybody have equal chances of working and getting a life than in a world where there are 'rich' and 'poor' people. Sometimes I wonder why the URSS took the military patch, because if you notice, it wouldn't had collapsed if it didn't had invest so much on army.

On the other hand, I understand if they didn't had do that Nazi Germany would had won the war... And later on, U.S.A would had plan the invasion or something.

Kirjutas International, 31.08.2015 at 06:48

wat?

Russia/Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania/Poland/Czech Republic/Slovakia are all phenomenally rich countries. Hungary, Belarus, and Croatia aren't rich, but they're still quite well off.

They may seem poor from a first world perspective, but I guarantee you, as a person who have lived in a middle-income country for years, that the average Pole or the average Czech has it so, so much better than the average South Asian (India, Pakistan, Thailand, etc...).

Depends on person really, for someone, knowledge is wealth, someone doesnt care about the money and $500 monthly salary is enough for him, others cry for that and blame government, communism, jews or america. Russia under Peter the Great was monastic and fanatically religious so much that Peter had to ban people joining churches and monasteries or Russia would end up like Mongolia with 90% of population being priests and monks. So i dont see Russians today grabbing for money and economy too much. Yet they can answer they are happy with economy and money they have although they didnt reach full potential.

You must agree that East Europe still didnt achieve economic development their geographical position, natural resources and system offer them.

You are right comparing East European and South Asian though, gap is huge, but gap between West European and East European is also huge.

Kirjutas clovis1122, 31.08.2015 at 10:19

I'd rather live in a world where everybody have equal chances of working and getting a life than in a world where there are 'rich' and 'poor' people.

But over time, one entrepreneur will start to make more profit than the other, skill or luck, so there have to be rich and poor people. Point is do you want to make it US way, or Norway way. US poor is $0 per month, Norway poor is $,1500. Therefore he is technically poorer, not poor comparing to his Norwegian countrymen.

Kirjutas clovis1122, 31.08.2015 at 10:19

Sometimes I wonder why the URSS took the military patch, because if you notice, it wouldn't had collapsed if it didn't had invest so much on army.

On the other hand, I understand if they didn't had do that Nazi Germany would had won the war... And later on, U.S.A would had plan the invasion or something.

I would argue that USSR collapsed because they didnt invest in light industry (consumer goods). Russian Empire was rural, 90% population living on countryside while West Europe and America industrialized, Communists were jealous and started to force industry, but only heavy industry (steel, metals, oil, machinery) while neglecting light industry (clothes, shoes, umbrelas, coats, hats) to save time and money to spend on heavy industry.

Do note how Russian Social Democratic Party didnt support revolution but supported capitalism in Russian Empire, because Marx said that Communism can only be created in a country which developed capitalist economy and experienced capitalism, which Russia didnt because it lacked industry. They were called Mensheviks (minority), Lenin left the party, created new communism and they were called Bolsheviks (majority), he wanted to create Communism in Russia and then create industry thus ignoring Marx theory. Results are shown in 1991. Lenin experiment failed, and we still didnt see Communism in capitalist developed country, like United States, England or Germany. They already have every branch of industry and economy developed, especially USA and those branches are not newly developed but they are for the last 100 years. Maybe Marx was right, maybe bringing Communism on top of developed capitalist country will be totally different than Communism in rural countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea.


Anyway, few reasons why USSR military spending was high: First Socialist state, it was alone on this planet and if im not wrong, they feared invasion from Capitalist World, USA and West Europe sanctioned them, just it wasnt felt in USSR because it had collectivization/nationalization. Second reason is German invasion which took 27 million Soviet lives, thats around 20% of Soviet population, they couldnt risk like that anymore. Third reason is to compete with USA, to claim how Communism can create superior weapon compared to Capitalism. Fourth reason is fear of nomenklatura (ruling elite) and aparatchiks (beaurocrats) losing their privileges if system collapse.

Kirjutas clovis1122, 31.08.2015 at 10:19

Kirjutas Skanderbeg, 31.08.2015 at 05:26

-------------------

I'd rather live in a world where everybody have equal chances of working and getting a life than in a world where there are 'rich' and 'poor' people.

Equal chances of opportunity or equality of end result?

Kirjutas Pheonixking929, 31.08.2015 at 15:40

Equal chances of opportunity or equality of end result?

Opportunities, of course. I once asked a person why there are poor people in the world, and she answered: "Because they decided to be so". After that I had to admit that not all poor people in the world are looking for opportunities, nor are willing to take it if offered. Some of them just want either 'die' or 'free stuff'. I believe no society can grow as long as people like that exist.

Kirjutas Skanderbeg, 31.08.2015 at 13:42

Kirjutas clovis1122, 31.08.2015 at 10:19

I'd rather live in a world where everybody have equal chances of working and getting a life than in a world where there are 'rich' and 'poor' people.

But over time, one entrepreneur will start to make more profit than the other, skill or luck, so there have to be rich and poor people. Point is do you want to make it US way, or Norway way. US poor is $0 per month, Norway poor is $,1500. Therefore he is technically poorer, not poor comparing to his Norwegian countrymen.

Well yeah, poverty will always exit. There will always be someone 'rich' as long as you can call someone 'poor'. But how about making those indicatives less relevant ? I believe we as human tends to judge someone by his economical condition. Heck, we even see with better eyes a "Black" rich guy than a "white" poor person.

People aren't able to realize that money doesn't always equal to effort. Money can be faked, effort and passion can not be.

Kirjutas Skanderbeg, 31.08.2015 at 13:42

Maybe Marx was right, maybe bringing Communism on top of developed capitalist country will be totally different than Communism in rural countries like Russia, China, Vietnam, Korea.

I agree with the rest of your points, but not full with this one. You can't really say that communism won't work in rural countries just because it failed in Russia. China is a brilliant example of, what I think you've said in another thread, that communism with the right changes can work, just like it did with China. At least I don't think it failed.

Cuba, while didn't manage to get a high economy or GDP, it does have an incredibly high IDH for the country conditions, and also have better healthcare system than the U.S. Once again, I wouldn't say communist failed there, but that it need some changes.

If we talk about 'pure' communism then yeah it would probably fail, since a single idea need to evolves with the changes.

As for the rest of the countries turning into communist so suddenly, you might want to check this link and also add the society reaction that it will cause.

I found one way to boost economy growth in post-Communist countries:

Communism in East Europe, USSR and China (before opening) had law which guaranteed house & appartment to families and couples. So when buildings are finished, they give them to workers in that part of the city or give them to peasants from the nearby villages (so they can move to city and work in factories, that resulted in overcrowed cities and neglected agriculture). Those appartments are built with quality and space (on purpose, to show how communism is futuristic and modern). So now after 30 years, they are still good compared to new style of constructing building where goal is to spend less resources and money which make buildings break alot and require constant maintaining. Communist buildings cost more today because of their quality, so my point is, owner of those appartments can easily sell them for $50,000, even more if appartments are in the city-center. Buy $20,000 house in countryside or appartment in city and invest $30,000 in your business, that way you create start-up company and employ workers so you wont be cheap labor waiting for other entrepreneurs to employ you.
You can buy $10,000 house but those are usually WWI constructed, very old without AC electricity and water supply, but it leave you $40,000 to invest in your business. So instead living in $50,000 appartment in the city center and work in neighborhood supermarket for $150 a month, they could sell and invest in business, which is more than enough for start.

So thats it i guess, Communism didnt leave people without nothing when collapsed, they had starting capital lying in their homes.